CnCNet 5 is eviiiil n' stuff

[Myg]

nm

[hifi]

... Yet you guys are changing CNCNET against the wishes of the CNCNET fans...

 

I see only you complaining - and still without seeing the final product. Chad is just being silly.

 

Also it's just me who is doing this, how I became plural? Don't mix the RA scene with CnCNet development. Though, I do have a web developer now who will work on the web thingy with me, but it's irrelevant as I'm calling the frontend shots.

 

I see what you are saying but I am calling for perhaps something that further aids this process ( for instance, allowing *all* new features to be accessible from a CONSOLE a la stdio with console commands (so no need for browser) and the GUI could be developed much later and /or improved independently of the new functions.)

 

As I've already said, all features are accessible without the web interface. You just need to know how to start the game properly. All CnCNet 5 parts are independent of each other.

 

... I do want to point out that "Personal Map Depositories" could become a pain to manage (and potentially be exploited by malicious users.)

We have had people who hid behind VPN's before, I just thought that a WEB based interface could be infinitely more exploitable and the more complicated it is, the harder it would be to restore a crash.

 

Uh, and how that differs from having a different version of the map on the hosts computer with the same name? The web interface will PREVENT exploiting by having official map repositories that contain safe and known versions of maps. That removes map cheating completely (to some extent, I'm not saying you *can't* cheat).

 

People LONG abandoned Tunngle before CNCNET got rid of port forwarding. People switched over for very clear reasons: easy interface and now login required, which is something you are removing.

 

Overall, you sound like I'm dropping the ball in a month and everything will change. It will not happen like that. CnCNet 5 will be slowly developed and it will have feedback rounds regarding the interface. I'm pressing now that the interface will be a lot like the LAN/WOL interface of RA and it should be familiar. I *never* said login would be required, instead it allows you to get access to more features and more privacy.

[Guest ehy]

-

[Volksjager]

Well I had some problems with my computer but I am glad we have a better understanding of things now.  :roll:

Just to set some things straight: 

Actually you invented the trump card when you thought the odds were with you.

 

NOPE. Funky was the first person to call for vote since the proposed change to rules.ini. I always thought voting on some things are a bad idea but then I became more covinced that the odds are on my side, not less.

No one forces you to use CnCNet.

Equivocation. I am talking about forced changes. When you are the only free service still in town it's hard to have choices isn't it?

Do they need to know if they don't care? If they cared they would check the news.

How do you expect them to know if they don't know this site exists? I asked you guys to post a message in server so people would know but that didn't happen. Half the players don't even speak English so I don't even see how they could know.

I bet, but that's just because you aren't telling them that a better lobby will replace it.

Instead of predicting the end of Red Alert you could just tell them to check the news. So they get full view about it.

Nope. I told them that "THE LOBBY" in RA will be gone and some of them got pissed. I told them all to go check the news but nobody cared enough even if they didn't like it. The problem IS that people aren't checking the news but it is irresponsible to say "We posted the note, you didn't check, the change is here, so it's your fault."

 

You probably mean login not required. Remember CnCNet dedicated server was released about year ago and that summer most people still played on Tunngle.

Oops, sorry I meant "no login required" being the attractive feature. That summer people switched over to CNC in droves when 2.0 got faster. Before that CNCNET was terribly slow (even compared to Tunngle) and I bet that people just loved [sarcasm] that 1min login that Tunngle sometimes needed.

 

OH yeah and P.S., back when people played on Kali you constantly tried to promote Tunngle even though it was much slower for most of the US players. It made me wonder if you had alterior motives? 

[Volksjager]

Also it's just me who is doing this, how I became plural? Don't mix the RA scene with CnCNet development. Though, I do have a web developer now who will work on the web thingy with me, but it's irrelevant as I'm calling the frontend shots.

Sure but then again all this time the discusison was framed as this being a response to urgently needed features, to which I was trying to point out that it was not the case.

True it's just you fronting this but Funky and Ehy certainly speak as if you guys were in on this together and try to shoot me down simply for disagreeing with change (or that just by chance you guys had the same opinion, which now I see is not quite the case as your understandings of what is needed may differ from each other.)

 

Uh, and how that differs from having a different version of the map on the hosts computer with the same name? The web interface will PREVENT exploiting by having official map repositories that contain safe and known versions of maps. That removes map cheating completely (to some extent, I'm not saying you *can't* cheat).

Well login was something that was discussed earlier but I guess it's not mandated now, although how are you going to have personal maps repositories without logins seems puzzling to me.

 

In the meantime, do you think it's possible to add an "/ignore" or "/ping" feature to the server by scanning and filtering all lobby packets and issuing server commands accordingly?

[hifi]

Sure but then again all this time the discusison was framed as this being a response to urgently needed features, to which I was trying to point out that it was not the case.

True it's just you fronting this but Funky and Ehy certainly speak as if you guys were in on this together and try to shoot me down simply for disagreeing with change (or that just by chance you guys had the same opinion, which now I see is not quite the case as your understandings of what is needed may differ from each other.)

 

I just happen to agree on some of their ideas (because some of them were mine to begin with).

 

Well login was something that was discussed earlier but I guess it's not mandated now, although how are you going to have personal maps repositories without logins seems puzzling to me.

 

Without login, use anyone's public map repo or the official repo. With login, you can store your own. It doesn't change much for casual players and those who care enough to make maps can certainly create an account.

 

In the meantime, do you think it's possible to add an "/ignore" or "/ping" feature to the server by scanning and filtering all lobby packets and issuing server commands accordingly?

 

No. It would be a major change and wouldn't work in p2p mode because in p2p mode the chat messages never reach the server.

[FunkyFr3sh]

thanks for all the replies, this thread is now closed

 

[Guest ehy]

-

[Graion Dilach]

Tunngle had conn issues. At least that's what I experienced.

 

Seriously, this flamewar is stupid. I am pretty sure that CnCNet 5 will be interesting. I remember CnCNet3 was glorious after everyone could see everyone in the lobby (unlike Tunngle) and I dunno Kali... and I remember that on some PCs CnCNet4 made this thing worse since on some conns enabled p2p will cause this Tunngle disappearence. So yes, having that thing fixed to have safe p2p mode for all... it just alone worths the change. OK, I only use the MO lobby, but still, it works. Unlike many MANY other things... CnCNet won the trust via stability.

 

I am really sure hifi won't throw that away. Considering that in the last months the amount of players on the statistics grown a lot. I remember back when Mental Omega team tried it out the top was around 30 players. Now 110.

 

Of course it needs to evolve, it is too close to the limits. And have to say, I can see that the CnCNet playerbase is growing like heck so the step to forward is needed as possible.

[Volksjager]

Well time for my weekly reply if anyone still cares  :laugh:

(Also entertainment for the readers, aka Herm  )

Only on points that I think stand out (and untrue):

 

But you said "you guys" I'm not Funky and this isn't about rules.ini anymore.

Well you two certainly were making the same argument by interest if not by agreement so it was merely a grouping for convenience.

 

You basically said the same thing again and I would answer the same, it's your fault for not telling the whole thing and their fault for not checking the site.

Absolutely rubbish. This is where we agree to disagree I suppose. If someone is proposing a change, it is HIS duty to inform everyone and have a vote on it, otherwise a vote carried out in the dark of night is a conspiracy.

At least I told them more than you did and I suggested posting a message on the server, which was never done.

You also ignore my comment about half the players not speaking English so it's not very easy for them to become informed.

 

New players started to play on CnCNet when redalert1.com had it in the pack, but most of the current players played on Tunngle and heck even on Kali until the dedicated came. If you disagreee with this you lie or don't know.

If you were on Kali more often you would've known: People visited both places while about 10-15 players played CNCNET exclusively. Tunngle lobby was definitely being emptied out during CNCNET 2.0 although my memory may be hazy. MOST players today did NOT play on Tunngle as most of them are completely new or played 10 years ago.

 

I don't see how Tunngle is slower than Kali, but so what? It was free and more noob friendly. Promoting it back then was for the good. Tunngle is important history of RA as without it RA would have most likely have totally died.

Not sure how it was noob friendly since both required set up, log in and port opening (in fact that VPN business was pretty awkward.) Free,? Yes but so was Hamachi and both were bad software (which is why you don't see that many Hamachi RA players.)

You were promoting it on Kali, essentially trying to grab players from Kali (which is the part I object, not so much against promoting Tunngle by itself.) Tunngle was mostly occupied by mediocre players at best (with exceptions of appearances of you and some others ) RA would not die w/o it since total Tunngle players never really exceeded total Kali players most of the time. Who are the players that still consistently play today? I see mostly the Kali players. CNCNET in its *current* form is what brought back players from the past and people who played locally around the world online (and I seem to recall that you were favoring Tunngle and bashing CNCNET during CNCNET 2.0)

 

Final note: This debate has shifted from substance to argumentation over semantics and history.

If I may summarize what I think are the important points we have agree on:

1) CNCNET will stay in its current form or will not be discontinued for now.

2) New release will be tested concurrently and incrementally.

If spamming/ ignoring is still a problem that people demand urgently solutions for (which currently does not seem like the case) then the following point is made:

Without login, use anyone's public map repo or the official repo. With login, you can store your own. It doesn't change much for casual players and those who care enough to make maps can certainly create an account.

From this I could see there is a vision for an ambitious expansion program. However, I am not even sure if such potentials exist, not trying to sound pessimistic (when number of players top 150 on a daily basis we will talk...) What is this idea of moving forward? Moving forward requires a vision that does not seem clear to me nor many other people. This whole community is about retro-gaming so it almost seems ironic that someone comes along and tries go forward. The danger that lurks here is that we might end up with a dissected game that neither preserves the past well nor "come to the present" (which seems an absurd goal to strive given that you are playing this game.) For example, take that RA for Open GL port. IMO that just ends up with a mediocre game that doesn't play well. Nobody who strives for the best in graphics is going to care enough and the new/ slow game engine alienates the players who like this game for what it is. Coming up with a new idea may give you some quick thrills for the moment but in the best case it could just end up as a superflous fad and in the worst case end up as something that finally kills the game; thus compatbility must be the top most priority and every step must be tread lightly and cautiously.

[Guest ehy]

-

[Volksjager]

Lol, you and your conspiracy. CnCNet 5 will have a demo, lets hear their opinions when people can actually try it. But hifi doesn't have duty to do anything, its HIS product. CnCNet aint your government. Also, you told them more than I did? Yeah, but you only told them lies. Lobby won't be gone, it will be a better lobby. And if someone doesn't speak English, there is google translator, surprised?

I guess we are already making progress in straightening things out. Previous versions of CNCNET were updated *automatically* so seeing the past I had to make whatever objections I had to *before* the perceived launch (especially when it was being tested in *private* already.)

Google translator is a bad excuse. If they can't read this forum to begin with then how would then know what's happening? How many times do you go to random foreign language forums and read it using Google Translator? (Well not sure about you but in my opinion most people don't do that.)

P.S. It seems like we are having enough difficulty understanding each other as we are. I like to see you *try* translating this post into another language you know using Google Translate and compare the two.

 

Your memory isn't hazy it's blacked out. Yeah most of the Tunngle players were new, so what's your point? Also most of the current players played on Tunngle that that time, period.

If Tunngle didn't come along but CNCNET did then we still would have just as many players since many CNCNET players didn't play on Tunngle.  Games were happening on Kali the whole time so there would never have been a time without RA online even without Tunngle.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't think there was any chance for RA to survive in Kali. After a while Tunngle always exceeded Kali in popularity, because of the new players (which some Kali fanatics tried to steal). Kali players are clear minority on CnCNet even when counted only the consistent players and most Kali players came back to play because there is future for RA and that is the new players. Tunngle and every CnCNet versions from 2 have brought new players and players from the past, they didn't just pop up to this version its been progress all the way.

Kali was not really a minority considering that new players also joined Kali and if all the Kali players suddenly disappeared then surely the skill level of RA would have been set back for years. You say Kali tried to steal players from Tunngle but it's the *other* way around. Even if Kali took TUnngle players it was Kali players trying to make mediocre players better. I really don't understand why you are so upset over people using Kali. If you didn't like Kali, that's fine, let's just leave this discussion.

 

I have never bashed cncnet or favored Tunngle over CnCNet. I was the most dedicated RA-CnCNet supporter, and I doubt you or anyone would be playing RA on CnCNet if it wasn't for my dedication [i started Tunngle RA network and community and I believe I was the first one to push hifi (before hifi I tried to push Irony to do it) to make CnCNet support RA and I was the first who was bringing players from other services to CnCNet]. However in CnCNet 2, port forward was required and still most players played on Tunngle.

This was relying on some line on "ra1.me" about Tunngle being better than CNCNET so if that was not you then I apologize (I am open to Herm's suggestion that it may be hacked.) CNCNET was catering to many CNC players before the RA community grew and even cncnet.org states the existend of a Red Alert Online Project before 2009 though it didn't get much attention but I had no intention of making this stuff up so please do not take this personally.

 

The idea of moving forward is to make RA more easier to set-up, more compatible and more enjoyable. RA itself will not change, opengl is optional and it's for compatibility, some can't play RA without it. CnCNet isn't gonna kill the game, what the heck? [CnCNet keeps growing, stats show that we had 100-110 players online a while ago, on Kali we would have maybe 3 players if there wasn't Tunngle or CnCNet. There is always point of return in CnCNet.

Well I have to agree with CNCNET being easier to use, etc which is why I advocated *not* changing it or keeping the easy to use interface. I really don't know how this debate spiraled down to this when the whole time I wanted to talk about the merits of CNCNET5 vs CNCNET4 (which I recall seemed to have happened when I made Kali an example. I guess talking about Kali really hits a nerve there  )

That being said my previous posts talk about why I think the proposed CNCNET5 solution is not as good as the existing solution or some other possibilities. The openGL port example was not about the .dll driver but re-writing the RA engine into something that does not play as well as the original. My example here is to show that if we tinker too much with something fragile, we might break it (aka, "If it ain't broken, don't fix it.")

CnCNet isn't gonna kill the game, what the heck?

I am not sure if this is just a misunderstanding or equivocation (look the word up.)

This whole debate was about keeping CNCNET the way it is vs the direction we are moving to so you making this point (aka twisting my words into something I did not say) would potentially offend me as much as that "Tunngle vs CNCNET" bit offends you but I would take this as a simple misunderstanding instead of something malicious 

 

Summary: Think next week to hit me back with some twisted crap.

Despite the fact you accuse me of "lying," I only want to get the facts right, and since everybody makes mistakes, please excuse mine if I made some, which is why I asked for clarifications. Meanwhile all I got were ad hominem attacks that don't even pertain to the original topic; you misconstrue my framing of facts as personal attacks while you employ personal attacks as part of your argumentation.

[Guest ehy]

-

[Guest ehy]

-

[hifi]

Ok... it seems we don't have much to discuss or debate anymore. Though, I feel like correcting some tiny misunderstandings

 

Previous versions of CNCNET were updated *automatically* so seeing the past I had to make whatever objections I had to *before* the perceived launch (especially when it was being tested in *private* already.)

 

Actually, no, tests were never private. I always ask people in the CnCNet IRC channel to test, whoever just happens to be there. If you'd care enough about CnCNet development, you would hang around there. Let's call that semi-public.

 

And Red Alert Online project was abandoned, I don't know if anyone got to play on it except hifi himself and it's not related to CnCNet.

 

Red Alert Online was played by like 20 people when I released it. Mostly just players from other games I played who I got to join the project IRC channel. I never advertised it anywhere so it wasn't such a big deal. I didn't have any ties to the C&C community and actually thought there wasn't any for the older games. It didn't live longer than a few weeks when I lost interest in it and the people who played as they were all casual who had played RA when they were kids and not hardcore online fanatics. After abandoning the project it took two years to regain interest in RA and that's when I found the original CnCNet and as being my kind self told Myg it sucked and I wanted to improve it.

 

CnCNet 2 was in fact quite clean copy of Red Alert Online. It was a direct drop of my original code to Google Code project. It has "rao" references all over it. It only supported thipx32 so it magically also had TD support and up to RA 1.08 (including CS/AM expansions, that'd be 2.00 or something) and after some complaints about no 3.03 support I added the wsock32 version and that became the final CnCNet 2 that ran until 3.

 

[Volksjager]

Well I am glad that Hifi finally cleared things up, so I was at least partially correct about Cncnet 2.0. 

 

Here are some responses in case interest is still shown (seeing that the title to this thread has now been changed.) 

 

Are you volunteering to translate it by yourself to every other language? Even if you did I think google would do a better job than you.

That still does not deflect from the fact that many more people won't be able to read it; thus every effort to bring up this issue and engage in debates becomes more valuable, not less.

 

Ra1.me never had such line and no it wasn't hacked. When you lie to me about what I do, it's personal. And Red Alert Online project was abandoned, I don't know if anyone got to play on it except hifi himself and it's not related to CnCNet.

About it being hacked is Herm's suggestion. Maybe others could testify about whether that line was there.

 

Yeah, I think the depate spiraled down when you suggested to make CnCNet 5 like Kali, which is like going backwards. How is RA not playing as well as original when hifi just fixes crashes and errors? RA has been broken so it's good to fix it.

How is debating about a specific user interface backwards? You seem to be on the line of "Kali is bad, anything else is better," which unfortunately defies all logic. The only thing discussed about is user interface, where we mostly have people with few exceptions craving for Mplayer or Kali and the rest wanting to stay with CNCNET4.

 

You should ask instead of stating things that you don't know. If you state crap as a fact it can be considered as lying.

If it's not this type of attitude I see from you then I could not have being so riled up in this debate about stuff that do not really matter.

Whenever I make a statement that I am uncertain about, I try my best to qualify it or explain it afterwards whereas you make everything out as a fact but as we just saw from Hifi's post, you also got some things wrong as a matter of fact. In that case, do you really wish to apply your own accusations to yourself? 

 

New players didn't join Kali with the exception of one guy who got there from ra youtube channel. You don't understand that RA can't manage without new players, Tunngle had a lot of new players, because of the fact it was more noob friendly, that's why I didn't like staying with sinking Kali. Old players in Kali did quit from time to time, eventually no one would be left. There were less players on Kali every year.

I agree with you that Tunngle had new players but please do explain to me why Tunngle had a more user friendly interface (I really can't see that, considering it required almost the same login, etc and the user has to go through a huge list of games before going into RA.) Perhaps it is mostly because Tunngle is free but that did not prevent many from going into Kali due to the quality of service/ players there. Also, Kali was not being promoted as much while Tunngle became heavily promoted by a couple of players (including you) so that was also an issue (at which point you seem to be jarred by anyone who promotes Kali.) I guess the only way this is pertinent to the original discussion is if you think Tunngle has a better interface (please elaborate.) If Kali were free then I would not see any advantage of using Tunngle.

 

You: Coming up with a new idea may give you some quick thrills for the moment but in the best case it could just end up as a superflous fad and in the worst case end up as something that finally kills the game. Thanks for warning, but care to elaborate what will end up killing the game then?

Most of the people who play this game play on a come and go basis. They play the game whenever it is readily available then they abandon it and when their interest returns maybe they will pick it up again. Changing the user interface to something that people is unfamiliar with might 1) Keep ancient players from returning since they don't care enough to learn about the new interface or 2) Keep existing players from playing as often due to complications in starting up games, incompatibilities, etc. If the rhythm people developed for playing this game becomes distracted then perhaps some day they will just leave it and not return (which IMO is perhaps why we have so few players today (eg whenever WOL killed ladder games or when MPLAYER or Gamespy went down a lot of players just went away and never came back.)

[hifi]

Changing the user interface to something that people is unfamiliar with might 1) Keep ancient players from returning since they don't care enough to learn about the new interface or 2) Keep existing players from playing as often due to complications in starting up games, incompatibilities, etc.

 

The idea is to keep the interface familiar so people who have played on CnCNet 4 can just upgrade and continue. Also, I don't see how complicated a game lobby needs to be so you need to "learn" it.

 

Incompatibilities are a problem regardless the interface. People need to use a commonly accepted package which currently is the redalert1.com one because of it's popularity. And as CnCNet 5 *requires* a special 3.03 exe to work at all I don't see that being a big problem either.

[Jacko]

Could Somebody fill me in with what the new features actually are?

Because its all hidden in some mad argument over 2 or 3 pages 

[FunkyFr3sh]

On 10/18/2012 at 6:21 PM, Jacko said:

Could Somebody fill me in with what the new features actually are?

Because its all hidden in some mad argument over 2 or 3 pages 

 

Private games with passwords and bans

Also you will be able to mute spammers and other people you dont like

...

Thats the main reasons why cncnet5 is needed, a lot other features like a ladder or tournament system could be possible too in the future

[Guest ehy]

-

[Guest ehy]

-